“Chindia” is the word coined by the Indian politician, Jairam Ramesh, to denote the two Asian giants that contain 38 per cent of the world's population between them. Nor is size their only similarity. Both are heirs of ancient civilisations; both were, until recently, desperately poor; and both are among the world's fastest growing economies. Yet the differences are also striking. By looking carefully at them one can learn more about their prospects for continued growth.
“Chindia”一词是印度政治家扎拉姆拉梅什(Jairam Ramesh)发明的，指的是拥有全球 38%人口的两个亚洲大国。而规模并非这两个国家唯一的相似之处，它们都是文明古国;都曾极度贫困，这种状况直到最近才有所改观;而且都位列全球增长最快的经济体。然而，它们之间的差别也同样引人注目。通过对它们的仔细观察，可以更多地了解它们持续增长的前景。
The economists' technique of growth accounting helps shed a bright light on the story. A recent paper by Barry Bosworth and Susan Collins of the Washington-based Brookings Institution does just that. It compares performance over the 1978-2004 period, but the years since 1993 are particularly interesting, since they succeed India's post-1991 reforms.
经济学家在统计增长方面的技能，帮助人们把这方面的情况清楚地展现出来。华盛顿布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institution)的巴里•博斯沃思(Barry Bosworth)和苏珊•柯林斯(Susan Collins)最近的一份报告就是这样。*该报告比较了这两个国家在 1978年至 2004 年期间的表现，但 1993年之后那些年的情况特别有意思，因为印度在 1991年后推行了改革。
The broad picture is of Chinese growth of 9.7 per cent a year, against India's 6.5 per cent. So, given differences in population growth, India's real income per head grew at less than half China's. Employment generated only a small proportion of the growth: 1.2 per cent a year for China and 1.9 per cent for India. In China, output per worker rose at the staggering rate of 8.5 per cent a year. Increases in physical capital per worker accounted for half of this latter increase and increases in pure efficiency – what economists call“factor productivity” – for the rest. India's output per head rose at 4.6 percent a year. Given China's high investment, it is not surprising that India's accumulation of physical capital contributed less than half the growth of China's. But factor productivity also had almost double the impact in China.
总体状况是，中国经济每年增长9.7%，而印度每年增长6.5%。因此，考虑到人口增长方面的差异，印度人均收入的实际增幅不及中国的一半。就业为增长所做的贡献仅占很小的比例：在中国和印度所占的比例分别为 1.2%和 1.9%。在中国，人均产出以每年8.5%的惊人速度增长。其中，人均有形资本的增长占了一半，纯生产率——即经济学家们所说的“要素生产率”——占了剩余的部分。印度的人均产出以每年 4.6%的速度增长。鉴于中国投资额很高，无怪乎印度有形资本增长的总和不及中国的一半。但是，要素生产率的影响在中国也几乎是(印度的)一倍。
The paper also provides illuminating contrasts with east Asian economies, other than China; namely, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. India's growth of output per head between 1993 and 2004 was as fast or faster than that of the aggregate of these seven economies over any lengthy period between 1960 and 2003. Factor productivity generated a contribution to India's growth of 2.3 percentage points a year between 1993 and 2004. For the east Asian countries, the corresponding figures were 1.2 percentage points between 1960 and 1980, 1.4 percentage points between 1980 and 1993 and just 0.3 percentage points between 1993 and 2003.
该报告还给出了与中国以外的其它亚洲经济体的鲜明对比，这些经济体包括印度尼西亚、韩国、马来西亚、菲律宾、新加坡台湾和泰国。在人均产出方面，印度从1999年到 2004 年的增长，赶上或超过了上述7个经济体从 1960年至 2003 年间任何时期增长的总和。从 1993 年到 2004 年这段时间，要素生产率每年为印度的增长贡献 2.3 个百分点。而在东亚国家，1960 年至 1980 年期间的相应数字为1.2个百分点，在1980年至1993 年期间为 1.4 个百分点，而在 1993年至2003年期间，仅为0.3个百分点。
In agriculture, China's growth rate was 3.7 per cent a year against just 2.2 per cent for India. Employment growth was negative in Chinese agriculture and marginally positive in Indian. The big difference was in the growth of output per worker, with China, again, accumulating capital far faster and achieving much faster growth in factor productivity.
在农业方面，中国每年的增长率为3.7%，而印度仅为2.2%。中国农业的就业为负增长，而印度则仅实现了微幅增长。两国在人均产出方面的差距很大，中国在资本积累方面再一次远远超过了印度，并在要素生产率方面实现了快得多的增长。
In industry, China's growth rate was 11 per cent a year, of which employment contributed just 1.2 percentage points. Output per worker rose at 9.8 per cent a year. Of this, no less than 6.2 percentage points was generated by rising factor productivity. Meanwhile, India's industrial growth was just 6.7 per cent a year. Factor productivity contributed a mere 1.1 percentage points a year to this growth. But employment growth contributed 3.6 percentage points.
在工业方面，中国每年的增长率为11%，而就业仅为此贡献了 1.2 个百分点。人均产出每年增长9.8%，其中，至少6.2 个百分点来自要素生产率的增长。与此同时，印度的年均工业增长率仅为6.7%，其中，要素生产率仅贡献了 1.1 个百分点，但就业增长的贡献为 3.6 个百分点。
Now turn to services. Here India's growth rate was close to China's: 9.1 per cent a year, against 9.8 per cent. Output per worker contributed 5.1 percentage points of the growth in China and 5.4 percentage points in India. Here is the one sector where Indian productivity growth matched China's. Rising factor productivity contributed 3.9 percentage points to Indian growth and just 0.9 percentage points to China's.
现在来看看服务业的情况。在这方面，印度每年的增长速度为9.1%，与中国的 9.8%较为接近。在中国和印度，人均产出对这一增长的贡献分别为 5.1 和 5.4 个百分点。在这一领域，印度的生产率增长可与中国媲美。不断增长的要素生产率，为印度的增长贡献了 3.9 个百分点，而对中国增长的贡献度仅为 0.9个百分点。
The results for India are largely what one would expect. But China's productivity – and particularly factor productivity – performance is far better than previous studies have shown. This is partly because of revisions to the national accounts, which have raised the level and growth of the services sector. Also important are technical assumptions about the impact of the capital stock on output, which matter for China because the capital stock grew so much faster than the economy.
很大程度上，印度的结果是人们可以预期的。但是，中国在生产率——特别是要素生产率——方面的表现，却远远强于此前研究所显示的结果。部分原因在于对国民账户(national accounts)的修正，此举提升了服务领域的水平和增长速度。同样重要的，是有关资本存量(capital stock)对产出造成影响的理论假设，这对中国来说十分重要，因为中国资本存量的增长速度远远高于总体经济的增速。
Evidently,this effort is heroic. Nevertheless, the broad picture is highly suggestive. Both of these economies have sustained a remarkable performance,though with China's clearly superior.India's outstanding sector is services; China's is industry. Employment growth outside agriculture is low and the share of agriculture in employment still high: 47 per cent for China and 57 per cent for India in 2004. China's productivity performance has been astonishing, largely because of rising output per worker in industry, though it has also done well in agriculture and services. India's productivity performance is also quite good, overwhelmingly because of services.
显然，这些努力是伟大的。然而，总体状况有着很强的启示性。两个经济体都维持了引人注目的表现，不过中国表现得更为卓越。印度最引人瞩目的是服务领域，而中国则是工业。农业以外行业的就业增长很低，而且农业在就业中所占的比例依然很高：2004 年，中国和印度的这个数字分别为 47%和 57%。中国的生产率表现一直都很惊人，很大程度上是因为人均工业产出不断增长，不过在农业和服务业方面也做得不错。印度的生产率表现同样很出色，但绝大部分要归功于服务业。
The implication, as the study itself concludes, is that “ the supply-side prospects for continued rapid growth in China and India are very good”.
正如该项研究做出的结论，其中的含义是，“在中国和印度，供应方面持续迅速增长的前景非常好。”
With a remarkably open economy and gross fixed investment at 43 per cent of gross domestic product last year, it is hard to identify significant constraints on China's growth in the medium term. A breakdown in the global economic and political system would presumably do it. So might domestic political or social instability. In the long term. Failure to persist with reform would also be a danger.
作为一个颇为开放的经济体，去年固定投资总额在国内生产总值(GDP)中所占的比例为 43%，从中期看，很难找出对中国经济增长构成明显制约的因素。全球经济和政治体系的崩溃也许可以做到这一点。国内政治或社会动荡或许也能。从长期看，如果不能坚持改革，也将十分危险。
India's fixed investment has been far lower. But it is already close to 30 per cent of GDP. If the fiscal position continues to improve and the inflow of long-term capital from abroad to accelerate, the investment rate could rise still further. Partly because infrastructure is poor and industrial performance disappointing, the upside for Indian growth is also bigger than for China's. But India also suffers from serious handicaps. The most important, apart from weak infrastructure and a relatively ineffective government, is the scale of mass illiteracy. Adult male literacy was only 73 per cent and female literacy a deplorable 48 per cent in 2002, against 95 and 87 per cent, respectively, in China.
一直以来，印度的固定投资要少得多，但也已接近其 GDP 的 30%。如果财政状况继续改善，而且外国长期资本流入加速，投资率或许还将进一步上升。从一定程度上讲，由于基础设施较差、工业表现令人失望，印度的增长空间比中国更大。但是，印度同样也面临着严重的阻碍。除了基础设施薄弱、政府效率相对较低以外，最重要的阻碍是，印度有大量文盲。在2002年，成年男性识字率仅为 73%，女性仅有糟糕的48%，而在中国，成年男女的识字率分别为95%和87%。
Chindia is on the move. Since China's standard of living is roughly a fifth of that of the high-income countries and India's one-tenth, the fast growth of the giants might persist for a generation. As Shakespeare might have said: O brave new world, that has such countries in't!
Chindia 正在前进。中印两国的生活标准，分别约为高收入国家的五分之一和十分之一，这两个大国的高速增长，或许会持续一代人的时间。莎士比亚(Shakespeare)或许会说：拥有这种国家的世界，是多么美好啊!(O brave new world, that has such countries in't!)
（责任编辑:allen）
